AUCTORES
Globalize your Research
Research Article | DOI: https://doi.org/10.31579/2640-1053/026
*Corresponding Author: Eduardo Harendza, Beast Oncology Services, Mexico
Citation: Eduardo Harendza, Treatment of locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer with our institutional protocol of split course concurrent chemo irradiation. J Cancer Research and Cellular Therapeutics, Doi:10.31579/2640-1053/026
Copyright: © 2018 Eduardo Harendza, This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of The Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Received: 10 January 2018 | Accepted: 20 February 2018 | Published: 02 April 2018
Keywords: radiation pneumonitis; pulmonary fibrosis; non-small cell lung cancer
Purpose: We sought to identify factors predictive of development of radiation pneumonitis and pulmonary fibrosis following split course concurrent chemo irradiation for locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer (LA-NSCLC).
Methods and Materials: We reviewed records of 108 patients treated with regimen of split course radiotherapy (median 60 Gy in 30 fractions) and concurrent chemotherapy for stage IIIa/IIIb NSCLC. Fisher's Exact Test and Paired Student T Test were performed to identify factors predictive of development of any pulmonary toxicity (pneumonitis or fibrosis of any grade) and severe pulmonary toxicity (grade 3 or higher pneumonitis, grade 2 or higher fibrosis).
Results: 56 patients (51.2%%) developed any toxicity; 22 patients (20.4%) developed severe toxicity. The following predictive factors were identified for any and severe pulmonary toxicity, respectively: reactive airway disease (RAD), age, RV % expected (EXP), PEF %EXP, FEV1/FVC ratio, smoking status; and RAD, FEV1 %EXP, FVC %EXP, FEV1/FVC %EXP, RV %EXP, FEF25/75 %EXP, PEF %EXP, S-GAW %, FEV1, FVC, and FEV1/FVC .
Conclusions: Our overall rates of any and severe pulmonary toxicity are acceptable. History of RAD and active smoking are protective, whereas patients with severe COPD have increased risk. A trend was seen toward improved outcomes with the use of prophylactic steroid control medication. These results should be confirmed in the context of a prospective study.
Radiation therapy (RT) remains an important component of the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) [1-3]. Unfortunately, the use of RT in this context is limited by toxicity to normal tissues, particular normal lung and esophagus [4-8]. Radiation-induced pulmonary damage typically manifests as radiation pneumonitis (RP), pulmonary fibrosis (PF), or both [6,8]. A number of prior studies have evaluated clinical and dosimetric predictive factors for these toxicities, with mixed results [9-14].
At our institution, patients with locally advanced NSCLC are treated either in the definitive setting to 60Gy in 30 fractions or neoadjuvant setting to 44Gy in 22 fractions with a regimen of split course concurrent chemotherapy and RT. The specific details and clinical outcomes of this regimen have been previously published [15-16]. In this study, we sought to identify clinical features predictive of any pulmonary toxicity (versus none) and/or severe pulmonary toxicity (NCIC CTC Grade 3 or higher RP and/or Grade 2 or higher PF) versus none-mild toxicity using this regimen.
After obtaining Institutional Review Board approval for this study, we identified 108 patients treated for stage IIIa or IIIb (AJCC 7th edition) NSCLC with an institutionally developed protocol of split course concurrent chemotherapy and RT using a split course approach. RT was delivered using standard fractionation (1.8-2 Gy once daily, 5 fractions/week), 7 or 8 fractions per cycle, 21 consecutive calendar days per cycle. The total delivered dose was typically 60Gy by 2Gy fractions (65 cases), with the remaining patients receiving slightly higher or lower doses due to tumor control or toxicity concerns. These patients were selected from a larger cohort of 144 patients treated with this definitive regimen at our institution; however, 36 patients received a truncated course of treatment due to toxicity, tumor progression, or a decision to proceed with surgical resection. We excluded those patients from this analysis to improve the dosimetric homogeneity of the study population.
Treatment records were reviewed to obtain toxicity data from all cases. In all cases, toxicity was graded using the NCI Common Toxicity Criteria Version 3 (Figure 1 ).
We classified Grade 3 or worse RP and Grade 2 or worse PF as severe toxicity. For patients who had pulmonary function tests (PFT) performed prior to the initiation of treatment, we collected all available parameters. In cases where multiple PFTs were performed, we recorded those most immediately preceding treatment. COPD was graded using GOLD Criteria [17]. For patients administered bronchodilators during testing, an improvement in FEV1, FVC, or FEV1/FVC ratio of 12% or more or an improvement in FEF25/75 of 32% or more was classified as reversible obstructive lung disease (ROLD) [18]. Any form of documented underlying lung disease (asthma, COPD, etc.) was recorded. Patients who were taking scheduled controller medications for their underlying lung disease at the time of treatment were also identified, and the controller medication was classified as steroid-based (oral or inhaled), non-steroid based, or both (albuterol inhalers or nebulizers used as needed only were not included). Patients who initiated the use of such medications after the beginning of treatment were not included. Patients with a history of asthma or PFTs showing ROLD were classified as having reactive airway disease (RAD) [18]. We additionally noted the patients' age, the side of the primary tumor (left versus right), and the patient's smoking history. Patients were classified as never smokers, former smokers (if they quit smoking prior to the initiation of treatment), or active smokers (those who smoked during and/ or after treatment).
Dosimetric data from RT treatment plans were also reviewed for all cases. A full dosimetric analysis will be submitted in a separate manuscript. An analysis of chemotherapy-related risk factors will also be reported separately. Fisher's Exact Test was used to compare categorical variables, and Paired Student's T Test to compare continuous variables/ means, between patients who developed any pulmonary toxicity versus no pulmonary toxicity, and between patients who developed severe pulmonary toxicity versus none to mild toxicity. P values .05 or less were considered statistically significant.
56/108 patients (51.2%) developed some degree of pulmonary toxicity, while 22/108 patients (20.4%) developed severe toxicity. The following predictive factors were identified for any pulmonary toxicity versus none: history of reactive airway disease (RAD), age, high or intermediate risk dosimetry, RV % expected (EXP), PEF %EXP, FEV1/FVC ratio, and smoking status. For severe pulmonary toxicity the following factors were predictive: RAD, FEV1 %EXP, FVC %EXP, FEV1/FVC %EXP, RV %EXP, FEF25/75 %EXP, PEF %EXP, S-GAW %, FEV1, FVC, and FEV1/FVC.
A history of RAD was found to be protective against any toxicity (p .04) and severe toxicity (p .03). When a history of RAD was compared to a history of COPD, RAD was found to be borderline significant in terms of protection against any toxicity (p .08) and statistically significant for protecting against severe toxicity (p .03). A history of any COPD was not predictive of any or severe toxicity (p .27 and .90, respectively), nor was it predictive after stratification by Goldman Criteria (severe, moderate, mild) although moderate to severe disease did approach significance when compared with none to mild disease for any toxicity (p .06).
Steroid controllers did reduce the rate of any toxicity compared to no controller medication (30% versus 54%), but this difference did not reach statistical significance (p .13), likely due to the small number of patients who took steroid controller medication during their treatment. There was clearly no difference in rates of severe toxicity (19% versus 20%, p .70).
The use of non-steroid controller did not affect rates of any or severe toxicity when compared with no controller (p .44 and .90, respectively) or steroid controller (p .36 and .46, respectively). Tumor location (right versus left) did not predict for any or severe toxicity, although there was a trend toward higher rates of any toxicity for left sided tumors (p .08). These data are shown in Tables I and II.
While esophagitis and fatigue are the most commonly reported acute toxicities in the treatment of thoracic malignancies, the most common and rate-limiting subacute and late toxicity remains pulmonary [6,8-9,11,13-14]. Prior studies have identified a number of clinical and dosimetric factors which are predictive for the development of subsequent RP and PF [9-14,19-21]. The results of these studies have been mixed and sometimes contradictory, with some implicating dosimetric factors such as
various Vdose or mean lung dose (ipsilateral or bilateral) and others implicating clinical factors such as smoking status, a history of COPD, age, tumor location, and various PFT metrics [9-14,19-22]. We are unaware of any prior studies that have evaluated the relationship between a history of asthma/RAD and the risk of subsequent RP or PF. Prior studies have also shown conflicting results with regard to the prophylactic use of steroids (oral or inhaled) as a preventive measure against the development of RP or PF [13-14,23].
A recent growing body of evidence implicates the central role of TGF beta and other cytokines in the development of RP and PF [24-30]. Unfortunately, this testing is not routinely available at our institution, and thus we cannot correlate baseline or subsequent cytokine levels with the development of RP or PF in our series. It is interesting to note that in our study both a history of RAD and current smoking status (defined as active smoking during treatment with or without continued smoking after treatment) were found to be protective against the development of RP and PF, because both conditions are known to be associated with elevated basal circulating TGF beta levels [31-33]. Also, both conditions are known to favor a TH2 immunologic response to noxious stimuli, while the dominant pathway leading to upregulation of TGF beta involves a TH1 response [34-39]. While a history of RAD has not specifically been evaluated as a predictive factor for RP or PF in prior studies, the influence of cigarette smoking on the development of RP and PF has shown conflicting results in prior studies, with some showing an increase in risk, others no relationship, and still others a protective effect [12, 40-42]. These differences in outcome may reflect differences in the definition of current versus former smoking status utilized in these prior studies [40-42]. It is tempting to speculate that the upregulation of TH2 responses in the lungs of active smokers and patients with RAD may be preventing or ameliorating increases in TGF beta during treatment and thereby protecting against the development of subsequent toxicity, but this relationship cannot be proven in this study as we do not have TGF beta levels available for review.
We did not find a significant relationship between a history of COPD and the subsequent development of RP or PF for all patients, but we did find a correlation between moderate to severe disease as defined by the GOLD Criteria and the development of toxicity [18]. Prior studies have shown mixed results as regards this correlation, and these differences may be explained by differences in the definition of COPD (prior clinical diagnosis versus assessment of PFT data) and whether disease severity was specified as in this study [9,13,19,21]. We did find very strong correlations between a number of PFT metrics and the risk of developing toxicity, and these metrics including measures of spirometry (absolute and/or percent expected FVC, FEV1, FEV1/FVC ratio, PEF, and FEF 25/75), lung volumes (absolute and/or percent expected TLC, RV, and ERV), measures of resistance (GAW), and respiratory muscle force (VC MAX). Thus, it may be the actual degree of lung dysfunction rather than a definition of COPD per se which predicts for risk, and this influence may be ameliorated in the setting of RAD/ reversible obstructive disease either because of differences in inflammatory response as described above or increased lung plasticity in the setting of reversible obstructive disease [18].
We found that patients 65 years of age or younger had higher rates of toxicity than older patients, whereas prior studies have shown either an increased risk with increasing age or no relationship [9,13-14]. Since these patients were not treated in the setting of a prospective clinical trial, it is possible that this finding is the result of treatment bias. It is also possible that this unexpected finding is related to our institutional treatment approach of split course therapy, since we have noted in previous publications that our approach is much better tolerated by elderly patients and those with significant medical comorbidities than standard protocols[15-16]. It is possible that older patients are less able to mount a robust TH1 response to noxious stimuli and that this might lead to lower TGF beta and other cytokine levels during and after therapy, resulting in lower rates of subsequent toxicity, but this hypothesis has not been proven, and our lack of TGF beta levels precludes an assessment in this study [42].
Tumor location has been shown to be predictive of toxicity in some but not all prior studies, with some showing no relationship (for left versus right, or for individual lobes) and others showing increased toxicity with right-sided or lower lobe tumors [22,43]. We found a borderline statistically significant increase in toxicity for left-sided tumors, but there was no difference in severe toxicity based on tumor location.
It is possible that the introduction of planned radiotherapy treatment breaks in our regimen may influence our patterns of toxicity. As noted in our prior publications, our regimen has an overall favorable toxicity profile, but most of the reduction in toxicity probably relates to reductions in acute hematologic toxicity and esophagitis (resulting in very little weight loss during treatment and few unplanned treatment breaks)[15- 16]. Since neither RP nor PF represent early toxicity events, it is unlikely that the increase in overall radiation therapy treatment time (from approximately 6-7 weeks with a traditional approach to 12 weeks with our approach) would meaningfully influence the rate of these toxicities [44]. Therefore, we feel that the risks of our analysis can likely be generalized to patients treated with more traditional regimens.
The strengths of the current study are the homogeneity of the study population and the treatment regimen. The weaknesses our study include its retrospective nature, the fact that the patients being reviewed were not treated in the context of a clinical trial (introducing the possibility of selection bias and potential inhomogeneity in radiotherapy plan review and approval), and the lack of TGFbeta/ cytokine data. As mentioned previously, we will be reporting the results of our dosimetric analysis separately, and we will also be performing a separate analysis of the various chemotherapy regimen employed in this series.
Following treatment of locally advanced NSCLC with our institutional protocol of split course concurrent chemoirradiation, we found that asthma/RAD and smoking during and /or after definitive treatment reduced rates of toxicity, while a history of moderate to severe COPD (by GOLD criteria) increased the risk of toxicity. We also found that multiple baseline measures of pulmonary function were predictive of toxicity, and that the use of steroid controller trended toward lower rates of toxicity. These findings should be further validated in the context of a prospective trial.
Clearly Auctoresonline and particularly Psychology and Mental Health Care Journal is dedicated to improving health care services for individuals and populations. The editorial boards' ability to efficiently recognize and share the global importance of health literacy with a variety of stakeholders. Auctoresonline publishing platform can be used to facilitate of optimal client-based services and should be added to health care professionals' repertoire of evidence-based health care resources.
Journal of Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Intervention The submission and review process was adequate. However I think that the publication total value should have been enlightened in early fases. Thank you for all.
Journal of Women Health Care and Issues By the present mail, I want to say thank to you and tour colleagues for facilitating my published article. Specially thank you for the peer review process, support from the editorial office. I appreciate positively the quality of your journal.
Journal of Clinical Research and Reports I would be very delighted to submit my testimonial regarding the reviewer board and the editorial office. The reviewer board were accurate and helpful regarding any modifications for my manuscript. And the editorial office were very helpful and supportive in contacting and monitoring with any update and offering help. It was my pleasure to contribute with your promising Journal and I am looking forward for more collaboration.
We would like to thank the Journal of Thoracic Disease and Cardiothoracic Surgery because of the services they provided us for our articles. The peer-review process was done in a very excellent time manner, and the opinions of the reviewers helped us to improve our manuscript further. The editorial office had an outstanding correspondence with us and guided us in many ways. During a hard time of the pandemic that is affecting every one of us tremendously, the editorial office helped us make everything easier for publishing scientific work. Hope for a more scientific relationship with your Journal.
The peer-review process which consisted high quality queries on the paper. I did answer six reviewers’ questions and comments before the paper was accepted. The support from the editorial office is excellent.
Journal of Neuroscience and Neurological Surgery. I had the experience of publishing a research article recently. The whole process was simple from submission to publication. The reviewers made specific and valuable recommendations and corrections that improved the quality of my publication. I strongly recommend this Journal.
Dr. Katarzyna Byczkowska My testimonial covering: "The peer review process is quick and effective. The support from the editorial office is very professional and friendly. Quality of the Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions is scientific and publishes ground-breaking research on cardiology that is useful for other professionals in the field.
Thank you most sincerely, with regard to the support you have given in relation to the reviewing process and the processing of my article entitled "Large Cell Neuroendocrine Carcinoma of The Prostate Gland: A Review and Update" for publication in your esteemed Journal, Journal of Cancer Research and Cellular Therapeutics". The editorial team has been very supportive.
Testimony of Journal of Clinical Otorhinolaryngology: work with your Reviews has been a educational and constructive experience. The editorial office were very helpful and supportive. It was a pleasure to contribute to your Journal.
Dr. Bernard Terkimbi Utoo, I am happy to publish my scientific work in Journal of Women Health Care and Issues (JWHCI). The manuscript submission was seamless and peer review process was top notch. I was amazed that 4 reviewers worked on the manuscript which made it a highly technical, standard and excellent quality paper. I appreciate the format and consideration for the APC as well as the speed of publication. It is my pleasure to continue with this scientific relationship with the esteem JWHCI.
This is an acknowledgment for peer reviewers, editorial board of Journal of Clinical Research and Reports. They show a lot of consideration for us as publishers for our research article “Evaluation of the different factors associated with side effects of COVID-19 vaccination on medical students, Mutah university, Al-Karak, Jordan”, in a very professional and easy way. This journal is one of outstanding medical journal.
Dear Hao Jiang, to Journal of Nutrition and Food Processing We greatly appreciate the efficient, professional and rapid processing of our paper by your team. If there is anything else we should do, please do not hesitate to let us know. On behalf of my co-authors, we would like to express our great appreciation to editor and reviewers.
As an author who has recently published in the journal "Brain and Neurological Disorders". I am delighted to provide a testimonial on the peer review process, editorial office support, and the overall quality of the journal. The peer review process at Brain and Neurological Disorders is rigorous and meticulous, ensuring that only high-quality, evidence-based research is published. The reviewers are experts in their fields, and their comments and suggestions were constructive and helped improve the quality of my manuscript. The review process was timely and efficient, with clear communication from the editorial office at each stage. The support from the editorial office was exceptional throughout the entire process. The editorial staff was responsive, professional, and always willing to help. They provided valuable guidance on formatting, structure, and ethical considerations, making the submission process seamless. Moreover, they kept me informed about the status of my manuscript and provided timely updates, which made the process less stressful. The journal Brain and Neurological Disorders is of the highest quality, with a strong focus on publishing cutting-edge research in the field of neurology. The articles published in this journal are well-researched, rigorously peer-reviewed, and written by experts in the field. The journal maintains high standards, ensuring that readers are provided with the most up-to-date and reliable information on brain and neurological disorders. In conclusion, I had a wonderful experience publishing in Brain and Neurological Disorders. The peer review process was thorough, the editorial office provided exceptional support, and the journal's quality is second to none. I would highly recommend this journal to any researcher working in the field of neurology and brain disorders.
Dear Agrippa Hilda, Journal of Neuroscience and Neurological Surgery, Editorial Coordinator, I trust this message finds you well. I want to extend my appreciation for considering my article for publication in your esteemed journal. I am pleased to provide a testimonial regarding the peer review process and the support received from your editorial office. The peer review process for my paper was carried out in a highly professional and thorough manner. The feedback and comments provided by the authors were constructive and very useful in improving the quality of the manuscript. This rigorous assessment process undoubtedly contributes to the high standards maintained by your journal.
International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews. I strongly recommend to consider submitting your work to this high-quality journal. The support and availability of the Editorial staff is outstanding and the review process was both efficient and rigorous.
Thank you very much for publishing my Research Article titled “Comparing Treatment Outcome Of Allergic Rhinitis Patients After Using Fluticasone Nasal Spray And Nasal Douching" in the Journal of Clinical Otorhinolaryngology. As Medical Professionals we are immensely benefited from study of various informative Articles and Papers published in this high quality Journal. I look forward to enriching my knowledge by regular study of the Journal and contribute my future work in the field of ENT through the Journal for use by the medical fraternity. The support from the Editorial office was excellent and very prompt. I also welcome the comments received from the readers of my Research Article.
Dear Erica Kelsey, Editorial Coordinator of Cancer Research and Cellular Therapeutics Our team is very satisfied with the processing of our paper by your journal. That was fast, efficient, rigorous, but without unnecessary complications. We appreciated the very short time between the submission of the paper and its publication on line on your site.
I am very glad to say that the peer review process is very successful and fast and support from the Editorial Office. Therefore, I would like to continue our scientific relationship for a long time. And I especially thank you for your kindly attention towards my article. Have a good day!
"We recently published an article entitled “Influence of beta-Cyclodextrins upon the Degradation of Carbofuran Derivatives under Alkaline Conditions" in the Journal of “Pesticides and Biofertilizers” to show that the cyclodextrins protect the carbamates increasing their half-life time in the presence of basic conditions This will be very helpful to understand carbofuran behaviour in the analytical, agro-environmental and food areas. We greatly appreciated the interaction with the editor and the editorial team; we were particularly well accompanied during the course of the revision process, since all various steps towards publication were short and without delay".
I would like to express my gratitude towards you process of article review and submission. I found this to be very fair and expedient. Your follow up has been excellent. I have many publications in national and international journal and your process has been one of the best so far. Keep up the great work.
We are grateful for this opportunity to provide a glowing recommendation to the Journal of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy. We found that the editorial team were very supportive, helpful, kept us abreast of timelines and over all very professional in nature. The peer review process was rigorous, efficient and constructive that really enhanced our article submission. The experience with this journal remains one of our best ever and we look forward to providing future submissions in the near future.
I am very pleased to serve as EBM of the journal, I hope many years of my experience in stem cells can help the journal from one way or another. As we know, stem cells hold great potential for regenerative medicine, which are mostly used to promote the repair response of diseased, dysfunctional or injured tissue using stem cells or their derivatives. I think Stem Cell Research and Therapeutics International is a great platform to publish and share the understanding towards the biology and translational or clinical application of stem cells.
I would like to give my testimony in the support I have got by the peer review process and to support the editorial office where they were of asset to support young author like me to be encouraged to publish their work in your respected journal and globalize and share knowledge across the globe. I really give my great gratitude to your journal and the peer review including the editorial office.
I am delighted to publish our manuscript entitled "A Perspective on Cocaine Induced Stroke - Its Mechanisms and Management" in the Journal of Neuroscience and Neurological Surgery. The peer review process, support from the editorial office, and quality of the journal are excellent. The manuscripts published are of high quality and of excellent scientific value. I recommend this journal very much to colleagues.
Dr.Tania Muñoz, My experience as researcher and author of a review article in The Journal Clinical Cardiology and Interventions has been very enriching and stimulating. The editorial team is excellent, performs its work with absolute responsibility and delivery. They are proactive, dynamic and receptive to all proposals. Supporting at all times the vast universe of authors who choose them as an option for publication. The team of review specialists, members of the editorial board, are brilliant professionals, with remarkable performance in medical research and scientific methodology. Together they form a frontline team that consolidates the JCCI as a magnificent option for the publication and review of high-level medical articles and broad collective interest. I am honored to be able to share my review article and open to receive all your comments.
“The peer review process of JPMHC is quick and effective. Authors are benefited by good and professional reviewers with huge experience in the field of psychology and mental health. The support from the editorial office is very professional. People to contact to are friendly and happy to help and assist any query authors might have. Quality of the Journal is scientific and publishes ground-breaking research on mental health that is useful for other professionals in the field”.
Dear editorial department: On behalf of our team, I hereby certify the reliability and superiority of the International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews in the peer review process, editorial support, and journal quality. Firstly, the peer review process of the International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews is rigorous, fair, transparent, fast, and of high quality. The editorial department invites experts from relevant fields as anonymous reviewers to review all submitted manuscripts. These experts have rich academic backgrounds and experience, and can accurately evaluate the academic quality, originality, and suitability of manuscripts. The editorial department is committed to ensuring the rigor of the peer review process, while also making every effort to ensure a fast review cycle to meet the needs of authors and the academic community. Secondly, the editorial team of the International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews is composed of a group of senior scholars and professionals with rich experience and professional knowledge in related fields. The editorial department is committed to assisting authors in improving their manuscripts, ensuring their academic accuracy, clarity, and completeness. Editors actively collaborate with authors, providing useful suggestions and feedback to promote the improvement and development of the manuscript. We believe that the support of the editorial department is one of the key factors in ensuring the quality of the journal. Finally, the International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews is renowned for its high- quality articles and strict academic standards. The editorial department is committed to publishing innovative and academically valuable research results to promote the development and progress of related fields. The International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews is reasonably priced and ensures excellent service and quality ratio, allowing authors to obtain high-level academic publishing opportunities in an affordable manner. I hereby solemnly declare that the International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews has a high level of credibility and superiority in terms of peer review process, editorial support, reasonable fees, and journal quality. Sincerely, Rui Tao.
Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions I testity the covering of the peer review process, support from the editorial office, and quality of the journal.
